Support NeoGAF

[Gotchaye]

I would like to argue... but this guy explains it so much better than I could : http://youtu.be/Ct1Moeaa-W8

Then I would hate to hear your explanation. There's nothing substantive at your link. He pulls numbers out of his ass and says "if these numbers are representative, then a higher minimum wage is a bad idea". He does assert that it works this way in the real world, but that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's see the data. Edit: And note that even if the minimum wage increases unemployment it can be a good thing, on balance.

I'll happily agree that a universal basic income is better than a minimum wage. Very few libertarians are advocating for that.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

It is lazy because like most politically extreme ideologies it assumes "all things being equal."

 

[Angry Fork]

And that, right there, is obviously the problem with a generous welfare system with minimal control over how much people can exploit it.

So you think people want to spend their lives living month to month eating noodles and eggs for the rest of their life?

This is what right wingers don't seem to get. Low income people don't exploit the government in order to stay poor, why would that make any sense? They do it to survive. Where as there are many reasons why a businessman would want to exploit his workers.

But even if you could prove some people just wanted to live poor until they die and didn't want to do anything meaningful with their lives, that would still be the minority, as eventually someone is going to get bored before they decide to pick up a book or go outside.

Do you really think it's a widespread epidemic? Or that humans are inherently lazy/not interested in individual growth?

 

[CyclopsRock]

So you think people want to spend their lives living month to month eating noodles and eggs for the rest of their life?

It's not really about "want" in a standard sense - if a state apparatus gives someone various incentives, one can't be surprised if their actions are thusly affected by those incentives. I'm not of the opinion that benefits being reduced is a solution to the problem, but you don't need to be a right winger to see that there is a problem.

 

[Hellraizah]

Then I would hate to hear your explanation. There's nothing substantive at your link. He pulls numbers out of his ass and says "if these numbers are representative, then a higher minimum wage is a bad idea". He does assert that it works this way in the real world, but that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's see the data.

I'll happily agree that a universal basic income is better than a minimum wage. Very few libertarians are advocating for that.

He doesn't pull number out of his ass to prove anything. He's using a simple example to prove it for people that only see the first side of the coin.

Have you ever been in business? Did you ever manage a store or a restaurant? This is what happens. Funny thing is when I hear people talking about how we must raise the minimum wage because the cost of living is going up. Haha, like raising the minimum wage wasn't one of the biggest reason living cost is going up.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

So you think people want to spend their lives living month to month eating noodles and eggs for the rest of their life?

This is what right wingers don't seem to get. Low income people don't exploit the government in order to stay poor, why would that make any sense? They do it to survive. Where as there are many reasons why a businessman would want to exploit his workers.

But even if you could prove some people just wanted to live poor until they die and didn't want to do anything meaningful with their lives, that would still be the minority, as eventually someone is going to get bored before they decide to pick up a book or go outside.

Do you really think it's a widespread epidemic? Or that humans are inherently lazy/not interested in individual growth?

No you see if we took out the social safety net of unskilled workers and had them work for pittance, meaning they will find it difficlt to eat, clothe or house themselves they will be incentivised into getting a better paying job and you totally wouldn't end up with millions in poverty.

It's the same "welfare makes people lazy" bullshit you've heard a million times.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Have you ever been in business? Did you ever manage a store or a restaurant? This is what happens. Funny thing is when I hear people talking about how we must raise the minimum wage because the cost of living is going up. Haha, like raising the minimum wage wasn't one of the biggest reason living cost is going up.

[Citation needed]

Prices went up without raising the minimum wage anyway.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

He doesn't pull number out of his ass to prove anything. He's using a simple example to prove it for people that only see the first side of the coin.

Have you ever been in business? Did you ever manage a store or a restaurant? This is what happens. Funny thing is when I hear people talking about how we must raise the minimum wage because the cost of living is going up. Haha, like raising the minimum wage wasn't one of the biggest reason living cost is going up.

No, he DOES pull those numbers out of his ass. Can you tell me where else he gets them? Or any indication that those numbers are representative of what happens in the real world?

 

[teh_pwn]

Libertarianism is a broad spectrum of varying political thoughts, but they generally are the converse of authoritarianism. I wouldn't say it's lazy, rather it may give more credit to humanity self regulating than is warranted.

 

[Hellraizah]

So you think people want to spend their lives living month to month eating noodles and eggs for the rest of their life?

This is what right wingers don't seem to get. Low income people don't exploit the government in order to stay poor, why would that make any sense? They do it to survive. Where as there are many reasons why a businessman would want to exploit his workers.

But even if you could prove some people just wanted to live poor until they die and didn't want to do anything meaningful with their lives, that would still be the minority, as eventually someone is going to get bored before they decide to pick up a book or go outside.

Do you really think it's a widespread epidemic? Or that humans are inherently lazy/not interested in individual growth?

I was raised in HLMs (the Canadian equivalent to projects in the US) so I know a bit about poverty. Of course, everyone wants to have more, but a lot of people ain't going to put in the effort to make more. I am now in the middle class because I worked my ass off. Most of my friends from childhood are on welfare and not doing anything about it (but they love to rant about how much life is hard and they don't have money).

 

[Angry Fork]

It's not really about "want" in a standard sense - if a state apparatus gives someone various incentives, one can't be surprised if their actions are thusly affected by those incentives. I'm not of the opinion that benefits being reduced is a solution to the problem, but you don't need to be a right winger to see that there is a problem.

I don't see the problem. Allowing people to survive isn't an incentive to keep them only at survival level. It is necessary to prevent mass starvation, ignorance and slavery.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I was raised in HLMs (the Canadian equivalent to projects in the US) so I know a bit about poverty. Of course, everyone wants to have more, but a lot of people ain't going to put in the effort to make more. I am now in the middle class because I worked my ass off. Most of my friends from childhood are on welfare and not doing anything about it (but they love to rant about how much life is hard and they don't have money).

So poor people are poor because they're lazy?

 

[smokeandmirrors]

I was raised in HLMs (the Canadian equivalent to projects in the US) so I know a bit about poverty. Of course, everyone wants to have more, but a lot of people ain't going to put in the effort to make more. I am now in the middle class because I worked my ass off. Most of my friends from childhood are on welfare and not doing anything about it (but they love to rant about how much life is hard and they don't have money).

So the "I got mine so fuck you" mantra...

Just because you were able to be successful and be somewhat prosperous, doesn't mean that there aren't people who were in your situation, who worked equally as hard as you who weren't so fortunate.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I don't see the problem. Allowing people to survive isn't an incentive to keep them only at survival level. It is necessary to prevent mass starvation, ignorance and slavery.

Well it's a problem when it competes with working, which is an alternative. Working might provide someone with scarcely more than they get off benefits - but it has the dual benefit of a) providing them with some more and b) shifting the burden from the taxpayer to the companies. It's in everyone's best interest that this incentive to stay away from work and on benefits not exist (even in business interests, because anything that distinctivises work inflates wages). How you go about reducing this incentive is an important discussion to have - there are options that reduce welfare and options that increase it - but it's really not hard to see how the competition, rather than the baseline quality of resulting life, is a problem.

 

[Hellraizah]

No, he DOES pull those numbers out of his ass. Can you tell me where else he gets them? Or any indication that those numbers are representative of what happens in the real world?

Did you ever manage a business? Do you know about entrepreneurship? The fact that is numbers are not real-world accurate doesn't mean that his theory is invalid. He used a simple example to explain how raising the minimum wage is bad, in the long run, for low skills workers. I've managed stores for many years and this is exactly how it happens in the real world. You have to pay people more and you're not netting enough money, two choices : raise your prices and/or let go of your low skills workers.

 

[Gotchaye]

He doesn't pull number out of his ass to prove anything. He's using a simple example to prove it for people that only see the first side of the coin.

Have you ever been in business? Did you ever manage a store or a restaurant? This is what happens. Funny thing is when I hear people talking about how we must raise the minimum wage because the cost of living is going up. Haha, like raising the minimum wage wasn't one of the biggest reason living cost is going up.

(Intentionally not repeating things other people have already said, re: he actually is pulling numbers out of his ass and [citation needed], but take them as read)

It's absolutely true that in a micro- sense we do expect a minimum wage to be above the highest wage that an employer might be willing to pay some people. That's a valuable point to make, but it's important to be clear that that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't have a minimum wage or that a minimum wage at some particular level is actually pricing a significant number of people out of the job market. But we also care about the macro- effects here, and, as I said in my first post in the thread, it's pretty typical of a lazy libertarianism that it doesn't make any effort to grapple with this.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Did you ever manage a business? Do you know about entrepreneurship? The fact that is numbers are not real-world accurate doesn't mean that his theory is invalid. He used a simple example to explain how raising the minimum wage is bad, in the long run, for low skills workers. I've managed stores for many years and this is exactly how it happens in the real world. You have to pay people more and you're not netting enough money, two choices : raise your prices and/or let go of your low skills workers.

Yes, it does mean his theory is invalid. If employees are generating significantly more revenue than the numbers he uses (which I can guarantee is the case, in particular with big chain firms like WalMart and McDonalds, etc), then his entire argument falls apart.

He uses numbers in a simple example that benefit his argument. That's a fact.

 

[CornBurrito]

Did you ever manage a business? Do you know about entrepreneurship?

Have you ever? Do you? What about the person who made that atrocious video?

 

[maharg]

I was raised in HLMs (the Canadian equivalent to projects in the US) so I know a bit about poverty. Of course, everyone wants to have more, but a lot of people ain't going to put in the effort to make more. I am now in the middle class because I worked my ass off. Most of my friends from childhood are on welfare and not doing anything about it (but they love to rant about how much life is hard and they don't have money).

And you did it all on your own. Other than the government giving you a place to live while you did it, anyways.

 

[Angry Fork]

I was raised in HLMs (the Canadian equivalent to projects in the US) so I know a bit about poverty. Of course, everyone wants to have more, but a lot of people ain't going to put in the effort to make more. I am now in the middle class because I worked my ass off. Most of my friends from childhood are on welfare and not doing anything about it (but they love to rant about how much life is hard and they don't have money).

Well that's their own business, are you really missing the 100 bucks per year the government takes out of your checks to fund their welfare? (I don't know if it's that much, maybe it's more or less but the point is it's a relatively small amount since everyone has to pay taxes, and you or your friends/family members will be helped in the future if you ever need government assistance).

But even if that were true you don't know what they're doing in their own lives or what their circumstances are. Some people made bad decisions and are trying to claw their way back, some people aren't single with no kids, some people find themselves feeling depressed/hopeless at their situation so they stay in a rut, some get into drugs/addiction etc. Like there are way more factors involved in how low income people act than 'hard working, or not'.

 

[equippedwithtowel]

Did you ever manage a business? Do you know about entrepreneurship? The fact that is numbers are not real-world accurate doesn't mean that his theory is invalid. He used a simple example to explain how raising the minimum wage is bad, in the long run, for low skills workers. I've managed stores for many years and this is exactly how it happens in the real world. You have to pay people more and you're not netting enough money, two choices : raise your prices and/or let go of your low skills workers.

If we're all appealing to our own authority now then I guess can tell you as a Canadian economics major: that the economic theory you've been spouting here is either out of context or idealist bullshit.

edit:

Answer my question :

Did you ever manage a business?

Because, you know, invalidating the guy theory because his numbers are not "real life" (when they are only offered to explain the logic anyways), you must have some real life experience of how a business works.

I ask the same of you.

 

[Hellraizah]

Answer my question :

Did you ever manage a business?

Because, you know, invalidating the guy theory because his numbers are not "real life" (when they are only offered to explain the logic anyways), you must have some real life experience of how a business works.

 

[The Technomancer]

Concerns about legislating beverage sizes is a fantastic satire on statists' pervasive micromanaging regulatory authoritarian bureaucratic instincts made all the funnier by the fact that they invented it and unwittingly satirized themselves.

Because in the absence of the state controlling what drink size you can order you are free to order any drink size you want. No private interests have any control over your decisions or actions, only states.

Obviously

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Answer my question :

Did you ever manage a business?

Because, you know, invalidating the guy theory because his numbers are not "real life" (when they are only offered to explain the logic anyways), you must have some real life experience of how a business works.

That has no relevance and quite frankly I don't care if you say you've managed a multi-million dollar firm. It doesn't change the fact that his numbers are complete bullshit and that you've avoided answering my questions (which are actually relevant to the topic at hand, by the way) about the numbers he uses.

Everything you have said so far is a perfect example of the flaws of libertarianism. It doesn't matter if the theory doesn't work in real life because it works in theory!

 

[ksan]

In Sweden, there is no minimum wage. Their average salary is higher than Canada and USA. Minimum wage hinders the market, shoots down the less skilled worker (that it is supposed to help). See the videos about minimum wage on www.learnliberty.org

Trying to support his positioning without knowing what collective wage bargaining and the Nordic model is.
#getgood #backtothetrashcan

 

[Gotchaye]

Because in the absence of the state controlling what drink size you can order you are free to order any drink size you want. No private interests have any control over your decisions or actions, only states.

Obviously

I never thought about it like this. Now I'm for legislating that all businesses selling soda must make available 16, 32, 48, and 64 ounce serving sizes.

Edit: Holy shit the same guy has a "Will Higher Tax Rates Balance the Budget" video.

 

[Karakand]

Because in the absence of the state controlling what drink size you can order you are free to order any drink size you want. No private interests have any control over your decisions or actions, only states.

Obviously

"Can I get a liter of cola?"

 

[Hellraizah]

That has no relevance and quite frankly I don't care if you say you've managed a multi-million dollar firm. It doesn't change the fact that his numbers are complete bullshit and that you've avoided answering my questions (which are actually relevant to the topic at hand, by the way) about the numbers he uses.

Everything you have said so far is a perfect example of the flaws of libertarianism. It doesn't matter if the theory doesn't work in real life because it works in theory!

You asked to know where he got his numbers from. Yes, he pulled them out of his ass. I said it. It wasn't supposed to be a real-world example. It's a theory that is grounded in logic and that's what happens in the real world. If you ever managed a business, you would know this to be true.

Would you keep an employee that is no longer profitable for you because the minimum wage is now too high to justify his salary? If yes, you would be bankrupt in no time.

I find it funny that people are thinking that I don't know anything about Sweden (and their unions favorable employment) or that we think somebody would die on the streets because there would be no welfare anymore. Let's put words in my mouth.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Everything you have said so far is a perfect example of the flaws of libertarianism. It doesn't matter if the theory doesn't work in real life because it works in theory!

I've never really understood this line of argument. Something can't work "in theory" but not "in real life". If that's the case, then it doesn't work in theory either, simply the person putting together the theory missed something or mis-calculated something. Theory is just a representation of real life. Where a theory is not an apt-representation of real life, it is not a valid theory.

So the question should really be "what is it about real life that makes it different to what is proposed in this theory?" What is the answer?

(Note: I haven't watched the video, I have no idea or interest in if the numbers are wrong - but the "it's ok in theory, but it doesn't work in practice" line of argument is as wrong for libertarianism as it is for communism - it just doesn't make sense. The criticism should be levelled at an incomplete theory, not at the apparent different between that and reality.)

 

[Hellraizah]

I've never really understood this line of argument. Something can't work "in theory" but not "in real life". If that's the case, then it doesn't work in theory either, simply the person putting together the theory missed something or mis-calculated something. Theory is just a representation of real life. Where a theory is not an apt-representation of real life, it is not a valid theory.

So the question should really be "what is it about real life that makes it different to what is proposed in this theory?" What is the answer?

(Note: I haven't watched the video, I have no idea or interest in if the numbers are wrong - but the "it's ok in theory, but it doesn't work in practice" line of argument is as wrong for libertarianism as it is for communism - it just doesn't make sense. The criticism should be levelled at an incomplete theory, not at the apparent different between that and reality.)

The theory explained in the video is pretty simple : if minimum wage goes higher, jobs that are no longer profitable are going to be cut at the expense of the lower skills workers.

The fact that we are even debating on if his numbers were true or not is making me smile.

 

[equippedwithtowel]

You asked to know where he got his numbers from. Yes, he pulled them out of his ass. I said it. It wasn't supposed to be a real-world example. It's a theory that is grounded in logic and that's what happens in the real world. If you ever managed a business, you would know this to be true.

Would you keep an employee that is no longer profitable for you because the minimum wage is now too high to justify his salary? If yes, you would be bankrupt in no time.

I find it funny that people are thinking that I don't know anything about Sweden (and their unions favorable employment) or that we think somebody would die on the streets because there would be no welfare anymore. Let's put words in my mouth.

Given the rate of increase to the minimum wage it is far more likely that your business had its revenue shrink, then the notion that the evil minimum wage encroached upon your territory.
Laying off employed due to drops in revenue is pretty standard practice.

 

[Gotchaye]

I've never really understood this line of argument. Something can't work "in theory" but not "in real life". If that's the case, then it doesn't work in theory either, simply the person putting together the theory missed something or mis-calculated something. Theory is just a representation of real life. Where a theory is not an apt-representation of real life, it is not a valid theory.

So the question should really be "what is it about real life that makes it different to what is proposed in this theory?" What is the answer?

(Note: I haven't watched the video, I have no idea or interest in if the numbers are wrong - but the "it's ok in theory, but it doesn't work in practice" line of argument is as wrong for libertarianism as it is for communism - it just doesn't make sense. The criticism should be levelled at an incomplete theory, not at the apparent different between that and reality.)

If you're from the US, this is going to sound condescending and I apologize:

What you're describing is exactly what lots of Americans mean when they say that something only works "in theory" or "on paper". They're not asserting that the world is illogical. It's about saying that a conclusion isn't true even though it might appear to follow from a theory without obvious flaws. It is itself a way of criticizing a theory as not producing results that match reality, but it avoids having to grapple with the theory directly - rather than reject some part of the theory, the theory is shown to be wrong in some way by the error it produces in practice. It may not be possible to point out where the theory goes wrong, but it is known that it does.

 

[ksan]

I find it funny that people are thinking that I don't know anything about Sweden (and their unions favorable employment) or that we think somebody would die on the streets because there would be no welfare anymore. Let's put words in my mouth.

You don't have to say anything about it or try to convince anyone that you know anything about Sweden in this particular subject, because you've already proven that you don't know shit. The damage is done.

Just to reiterate
#getgood

 

[CHEEZMO™]

The fact that we are even debating on if his numbers were true or not is making me smile.

Hope you have your rings in.

 

[Hellraizah]

You don't have to say anything about it or try to convince anyone that you know anything about Sweden, because you've already proven that you don't know shit. The damage is done.

Just to reiterate
#getgood

School me, then. #dudewhothinkshesontwitter

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

You asked to know where he got his numbers from. Yes, he pulled them out of his ass. I said it. It wasn't supposed to be a real-world example. It's a theory that is grounded in logic and that's what happens in the real world. If you ever managed a business, you would know this to be true.

Would you keep an employee that is no longer profitable for you because the minimum wage is now too high to justify his salary? If yes, you would be bankrupt in no time.

I find it funny that people are thinking that I don't know anything about Sweden (and their unions favorable employment) or that we think somebody would die on the streets because there would be no welfare anymore. Let's put words in my mouth.

He doesn't pull number out of his ass to prove anything. He's using a simple example to prove it for people that only see the first side of the coin.

No one's putting words in your mouth except yourself.

For some reason, you still don't understand that your entire argument falls apart when real world numbers applied (because the numbers in that videos certainly do not apply to big firms like McDonalds or WalMart, who are the main employers of minimum wage). The "logic" in that video only works with those numbers or proportionally similar numbers. Not with numbers in the real world.

(P.S. Public sector employment accounts for over one-third of total employment in Sweden. It's not necessarily a minimum wage in the traditional sense, but that amount of public employment essentially creates a wage level which the private sector rarely goes below)

 

[ksan]

School me, then. #dudewhothinkshesontwitter

At least I wasn't the one posting the same link in multiple posts thinking it supported his position, while not understanding the context of the examples provided in the same post.

 

[empty vessel]

The reason why libertarianism is impracticable is as simple as this: http://www.cpsc.gov/onsafety/2011/06/the-new-crib-standard-questions-and-answers/

It is not possible for individual consumers to make good purchasing decisions in an unregulated market. Not possible, as in impossible. Why? Individual consumers cannot be experts in everything. They do not know--and cannot reasonably be expected to know--what a safe distance between slats in a baby crib is. They do not know--and cannot be expected to know--what ingredients in food or materials in goods are carcinogenic. They do not know--and cannot be expected to know--whether any given food they buy has been grown and stored safely until the point of sale. Nor would it even be desirable for every citizen to know these things. It would require economic standstill to require every individual in a society to become an expert in every conceivable topic that could negatively affect them or their family in terms of products that they consume. There would no longer be time for work if we all had to become scientists in every conceivable scientific field.

Not only that, even if we did all become experts in every conceivable subject impacting our safety with respect to products we buy, without regulation--i.e., without social planning--we would still be at the mercy of the sellers of those products concealing relevant information about them.

Libertarianism doesn't require more than a handful of seconds of critical thought to reject.

 

[equippedwithtowel]

The reason why libertarianism is impracticable is as simple as this: http://www.cpsc.gov/onsafety/2011/06/the-new-crib-standard-questions-and-answers/

It is not possible for individual consumers to make good purchasing decisions in an unregulated market. Not possible, as in impossible. Why? Individual consumers cannot be experts in everything. They do not know--and cannot reasonably be expected to know--what a safe distance between slats in a baby crib is. They do not know--and cannot be expected to know--what ingredients in food or materials in goods are carcinogenic. They do not know--and cannot be expected to know--whether any given food they buy has been grown and stored safely until the point of sale. Nor would it even be desirable for every citizen to know these things. It would require economic standstill to require every individual in a society to become an expert in every conceivable topic that could negatively affect them or their family in terms of products that they consume. There would no longer be time for work if we all had to become scientists in every conceivable scientific field.

Not only that, even if we did all become experts in every conceivable subject impacting our safety with respect to products we buy, without regulation--i.e., without social planning--we would still be at the mercy of the sellers of those products concealing relevant information about them.

Libertarianism doesn't require more than a handful of seconds of critical thought to reject.

And we're done here.
Unfortunately so many "self-made" individuals have no idea why they haven't dropped dead of botulism.

 

[Hellraizah]

No one's putting words in your mouth except yourself.

For some reason, you still don't understand that your entire argument falls apart when real world numbers applied (because the numbers in that videos certainly do not apply to big firms like McDonalds or WalMart, who are the main employers of minimum wage). The "logic" in that video only works with those numbers or proportionally similar numbers. Not with numbers in the real world.

(P.S. Public sector employment accounts for over one-third of total employment in Sweden. It's not necessarily a minimum wage in the traditional sense, but that amount of public employment essentially creates a wage level which the private sector rarely goes below)

My sentence might read like I'm saying that he "doesn't pull numbers out of his ass" but what I'm saying is that he is not trying to prove anything with real world numbers. These are not statistics, this is a simple example to explain the theory. English is not my native language, so that might sound wrong, but I thought people would understand what I meant.

 

[Bombadil]

Our liberal betters in action. The sheeple are so ignorant and incapable of making their own judgements about the risks and drawbacks of obesity we have to debase the rule of law to the point where we are using it to dictate container sizes for coke. We decide. For. Their. Own. Good. I don't even know what to say.

Like someone who thinks they know so much more than the average person they are authorized, nay required, to decide and legislate the size of the beverage containers the average, ignorant (their word) person should be able to purchase? Lulzy!

Your snarky posts win you no points.

You have yet to make a compelling case for libertarianism. All you have done is resorted to the very false principle that I've outlined before.

Your sarcastic posts seem to imply that the public is capable of making the right decisions, or at the very least that they should be allowed to make whatever decisions they wish. You uphold a pointless concept that has caused so much suffering.

The numbers show that people don't make the right decisions. The numbers show that corporations will do whatever is possible to push their products on to the forefront of the public consciousness.

26 million diabetics. 79 million pre-diabetics. 107,000,000 obese adults. $147 billion in medical costs associated with obesity.

Still, you act like government regulation is a bad joke.

If it wasn't for government regulation, they wouldn't even tell you what they put in the sodas.

 

[The Technomancer]

I never thought about it like this. Now I'm for legislating that all businesses selling soda must make available 16, 32, 48, and 64 ounce serving sizes.

Edit: Holy shit the same guy has a "Will Higher Tax Rates Balance the Budget" video.

I mean, the soda restriction is most definitly a restriction on the freedom of buisnesses. But it is not any more of a restriction on consumer freedom then any of the restrictions already in place from businesses.

 

[ksan]

The reason why libertarianism is impracticable is as simple as this: http://www.cpsc.gov/onsafety/2011/06/the-new-crib-standard-questions-and-answers/

Well, you could argue that non-governmental organizations could create standards and certificate products that adhere to them as signaling.

Not only that, even if we did all become experts in every conceivable subject impacting our safety with respect to products we buy, without regulation--i.e., without social planning--we would still be at the mercy of the sellers of those products concealing relevant information about them.

But yeah, this is why I'm of the opinion that it might be a bit too optimistic to think that'd work in every situation.
Not to mention that some people would buy the cheaper product regardless, due to a myriad of reasons.

 

[CyclopsRock]

If you're from the US, this is going to sound condescending and I apologize:

What you're describing is exactly what lots of Americans mean when they say that something only works "in theory" or "on paper". They're not asserting that the world is illogical. It's about saying that a conclusion isn't true even though it might appear to follow from a theory without obvious flaws. It is itself a way of criticizing a theory as not producing results that match reality, but it avoids having to grapple with the theory directly - rather than reject some part of the theory, the theory is shown to be wrong in some way by the error it produces in practice. It may not be possible to point out where the theory goes wrong, but it is known that it does.

I'm not from the UK - why would it sound condescending if I were?!

And I agree, but, " t may not be possible to point out where the theory goes wrong, but it is known that it does" sounds a lot like "Paedophiles have more DNA in common with crabs than they do with you or I - there's no scientific evidence for it, but it is fact!" Well, why is it fact? I don't think it's reasonable to simply say "That's not true" whilst going to no efforts to explain why. That's not a response to a theory, that's a blithe dismissal and does little to propel an argument.

 

[Gotchaye]

I mean, the soda restriction is most definitly a restriction on the freedom of buisnesses. But it is not any more of a restriction on consumer freedom then any of the restrictions already in place from businesses.

I got it. I was just playing with the idea that consumers' freedom to buy soda in the size of their choosing is really what's important by suggesting government action to prevent businesses from restricting that freedom to the extent they already do.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The reason why libertarianism is impracticable is as simple as this: http://www.cpsc.gov/onsafety/2011/06/the-new-crib-standard-questions-and-answers/

It is not possible for individual consumers to make good purchasing decisions in an unregulated market. Not possible, as in impossible. Why? Individual consumers cannot be experts in everything. They do not know--and cannot reasonably be expected to know--what a safe distance between slats in a baby crib is. They do not know--and cannot be expected to know--what ingredients in food or materials in goods are carcinogenic. They do not know--and cannot be expected to know--whether any given food they buy has been grown and stored safely until the point of sale. Nor would it even be desirable for every citizen to know these things. It would require economic standstill to require every individual in a society to become an expert in every conceivable topic that could negatively affect them or their family in terms of products that they consume. There would no longer be time for work if we all had to become scientists in every conceivable scientific field.

Not only that, even if we did all become experts in every conceivable subject impacting our safety with respect to products we buy, without regulation--i.e., without social planning--we would still be at the mercy of the sellers of those products concealing relevant information about them.

Libertarianism doesn't require more than a handful of seconds of critical thought to reject.

I know we don't always agree (tee hee hee) EV, but this is a genine question: Why even bother with an economy, in your view? In light of not only the ignorance of the populous, but the active desire for an ignorance, why have any sort of market at all, rather than a government that gives its people the objective best solution to all problems and desires - even those that the people don't even know they want (or don't want)? Does desire have no inherent virtue?

 

[Videoneon]

I'm not from the UK - why would it sound condescending if I were?!

And I agree, but, " t may not be possible to point out where the theory goes wrong, but it is known that it does" sounds a lot like "Paedophiles have more DNA in common with crabs than they do with you or I - there's no scientific evidence for it, but it is fact!" Well, why is it fact? I don't think it's reasonable to simply say "That's not true" whilst going to no efforts to explain why. That's not a response to a theory, that's a blithe dismissal and does little to propel an argument.

But why is Libertarianism as an applied political philosophy desirable? The idea is it is validated by being axiomatic, and by little virtue of reference to external circumstance

 

[Gotchaye]

I'm not from the UK - why would it sound condescending if I were?!

And I agree, but, " t may not be possible to point out where the theory goes wrong, but it is known that it does" sounds a lot like "Paedophiles have more DNA in common with crabs than they do with you or I - there's no scientific evidence for it, but it is fact!" Well, why is it fact? I don't think it's reasonable to simply say "That's not true" whilst going to no efforts to explain why. That's not a response to a theory, that's a blithe dismissal and does little to propel an argument.

I was explaining something about how "Americans" talk. Explaining to someone how their own culture works can easily come across as insulting.

Anyway, those cases are different. If "it only works in theory" is concluded on the basis of a claim that is itself in dispute, "it only works in theory" isn't an argument against a claim produced by a theory.

"It only works in theory" is used when a claim is known to be true or false. "Communism only works in theory" is about pointing to the poor record of Communism as a governing philosophy. Communism doesn't work is known to be true*. But the people noticing that Communism doesn't work can't find (or can't be bothered to find) holes in Communist theory (to the extent that they're aware of it). So they dismiss the theory by pointing at its poor real-world track record, while acknowledging that the theory may not have any flaws that they can see. They know the flaws are there but can't point to them, such that, if they only knew the theory and didn't have the advantage of the real-world testing of it, they might think that Communism worked.

*Everyone grant this for the moment; it's beside the point.

Edit: For the pedophile case, "it only works in theory" would only work if the theory that concluded that "Pedophiles have more..." had made other unambiguously false predictions. Its failure in other areas would cast doubt on the particular conclusion at issue.

 

[FLEABttn]

The reason why libertarianism is impracticable is as simple as this: http://www.cpsc.gov/onsafety/2011/06/the-new-crib-standard-questions-and-answers/

It is not possible for individual consumers to make good purchasing decisions in an unregulated market. Not possible, as in impossible. Why? Individual consumers cannot be experts in everything. They do not know--and cannot reasonably be expected to know--what a safe distance between slats in a baby crib is. They do not know--and cannot be expected to know--what ingredients in food or materials in goods are carcinogenic. They do not know--and cannot be expected to know--whether any given food they buy has been grown and stored safely until the point of sale. Nor would it even be desirable for every citizen to know these things. It would require economic standstill to require every individual in a society to become an expert in every conceivable topic that could negatively affect them or their family in terms of products that they consume. There would no longer be time for work if we all had to become scientists in every conceivable scientific field.

Not only that, even if we did all become experts in every conceivable subject impacting our safety with respect to products we buy, without regulation--i.e., without social planning--we would still be at the mercy of the sellers of those products concealing relevant information about them.

Libertarianism doesn't require more than a handful of seconds of critical thought to reject.

Make sweet economic political love to me.

 

[empty vessel]

Well, you could argue that non-governmental organizations could create standards and certificate products that adhere to them as signaling.

Because this could only be effective if the organizations were funded by consumers, it is an unrealistic and, notwithstanding that, extremely inefficient solution. The government is a far more efficient mechanism to achieve consumer safety. And as long as the government is democratic, it is effectively the same thing, given that all Americans are consumers. So what does it matter whether it's governmental or non-governmental. The objection is necessarily ideological.

Assume that consumers magically organized enough to create institutions to enact and grade products for sale. Consumers were so well-organized that sellers had to have the certifications in order to sell their products, because otherwise nobody would buy them. A libertarian should easily be able to spot the problem here. Free-riders. Not every consumer would contribute to the consumer cause, but they would nevertheless gain its benefits. In reality, this is why the project is unrealistic to begin with. Government regulation is precisely necessary because consumers cannot organize in the manner suggested. Using government ensures that everybody contributes to paying for the consumer protection of the whole.

The bottom line is that consumer protection is a social enterprise. And social enterprises are most effectively and efficiently carried out by democratic governments.

I know we don't always agree (tee hee hee) EV, but this is a genine question: Why even bother with an economy, in your view? In light of not only the ignorance of the populous, but the active desire for an ignorance, why have any sort of market at all, rather than a government that gives its people the objective best solution to all problems and desires - even those that the people don't even know they want (or don't want)? Does desire have no inherent virtue?

Ignorance can be a virtue when somebody is seriously proposing that our lives and our family's lives depend on knowing everything in the world. In short, the proposal is impractical. People should obviously educate themselves as much as they can. But proposing a world in which everybody must know everything at peril of death is just silly.